I'm kinda excited for what new term or phrase I've never heard he might have some character say.

__________________I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday
"He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

[...]"Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he's not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he's Superman and because people idolise him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard."

Superman killing Zod wasn't as much of a deal breaker for me as it was for other people, but this comment makes no sense. People will idolize Superman? Why? The guy's complicit in destroying half of Metropolis and has killed his own. He even admitted there's nothing anyone can do to stop him. If I was a normal street walker in his universe, I'd head for the hills as soon as Superman shows up.

I'm well aware Clark isn't suddenly a villain now, or even a bad person. He saved the world from worse. But if you were one of those up-in-the-sky-ers, would you "idolize" Superman for his actions so far?

Superman killing Zod wasn't as much of a deal breaker for me as it was for other people, but this comment makes no sense. People will idolize Superman? Why? The guy's complicit in destroying half of Metropolis and has killed his own. He even admitted there's nothing anyone can do to stop him. If I was a normal street walker in his universe, I'd head for the hills as soon as Superman shows up.

I'm well aware Clark isn't suddenly a villain now, or even a bad person. He saved the world from worse. But if you were one of those up-in-the-sky-ers, would you "idolize" Superman for his actions so far?

Superman killing Zod wasn't as much of a deal breaker for me as it was for other people, but this comment makes no sense. People will idolize Superman? Why? The guy's complicit in destroying half of Metropolis and has killed his own. He even admitted there's nothing anyone can do to stop him. If I was a normal street walker in his universe, I'd head for the hills as soon as Superman shows up.

I'm well aware Clark isn't suddenly a villain now, or even a bad person. He saved the world from worse. But if you were one of those up-in-the-sky-ers, would you "idolize" Superman for his actions so far?

After all that went down in the movie, would Snyder's Superman, in terms of public acceptance, be the anti-Donner (at least initially in the public eye)? Not universally loved at first sight. Feared even.

Other than the handful who were saved by Superman himself or witness Superman (or the ghost) performing acts of heroism, wouldn't the rest of the world regard him in a suspicious light?

After all that went down in the movie, would Snyder's Superman, in terms of public acceptance, be the anti-Donner (at least initially in the public eye)? Not universally loved at first sight. Feared even.

Other than the handful who were saved by Superman himself or witness Superman (or the ghost) performing acts of heroism, wouldn't the rest of the world regard him in a suspicious light?

Worse than suspicious. Not only would you have people blaming him as equally responsible for the destruction his battle with Zod caused (wether or not you as a viewer think he shares any responsibility doesn't change the fact that that's how a lot of people would react), but there's the fact that Zod flat out told the entire world that the only reason the Kryptonians came to Earth was because Superman was there. A huge swath of the population are going to place all the blame squarely on him. Over time, it might subside if he never does anything controversial and just saves people from disasters (and does that a lot), but within six months of the invasion there's going to be a huge amount of public outcry demanding his head.

Worse than suspicious. Not only would you have people blaming him as equally responsible for the destruction his battle with Zod caused (wether or not you as a viewer think he shares any responsibility doesn't change the fact that that's how a lot of people would react), but there's the fact that Zod flat out told the entire world that the only reason the Kryptonians came to Earth was because Superman was there. A huge swath of the population are going to place all the blame squarely on him. Over time, it might subside if he never does anything controversial and just saves people from disasters (and does that a lot), but within six months of the invasion there's going to be a huge amount of public outcry demanding his head.

Yeah, it'd make for magnificent grist in the sequel. Just a pity in my book this wasn't teased out in the movie's closing moments.

To me. With MOS it was "Dick splash" and in Blade it was "Some mother****ers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

__________________I was at some diplomatic party once. Got to talking to this princess who told me that when it came to Superman, I was missing the point. She told me, "His real strength lay in his generous spirit and sense of what's fair." - King Faraday
"He’s much more of a working class superhero, which is why we ended the whole book with the image of a laboring Superman. He’s Everyman operating on a sci–fi Paul Bunyan scale." - Grant Morrison

They should hire some of the guys behind DC animated works and get a talented script writer to work over their ideas. Goyer isn't capable and should be pulled back.

That's too obvious. It's why WB isn't choosing to do so.

Snyder's flexible, so he would probably take a lot of ideas. Goyer needs to be demoted to the ideas man that he was for the TDK sequels. They need to get a witty writer from the JLU show in order to really bring our dreams to life

Snyder's flexible, so he would probably take a lot of ideas. Goyer needs to be demoted to the ideas man that he was for the TDK sequels. They need to get a witty writer from the JLU show in order to really bring our dreams to life

Every now and then someone actually cites some of the work from the Tim superman animated era and it's quickly brushed off as batman centric.

I find people in general overrate the animated movies. They are not that good. If you think MoS has too much action and too little character development, watch public enemies or emerald knights. Those movies are BORING. Superman also killed twice in the adaptation of all star superman, which was a change from the source material.

I don't want goyer talking too much to DC. I do not want to see superman date wonder woman, etc.

I find people in general overrate the animated movies. They are not that good. If you think MoS has too much action and too little character development, watch public enemies or emerald knights. Those movies are BORING. Superman also killed twice in the adaptation of all star superman, which was a change from the source material.

I don't want goyer talking too much to DC. I do not want to see superman date wonder woman, etc.

I think fans generally think highly of the Timm/Dini universe featuring BTAS, STAS, and The Justice League -- not so much the other stand-alone films you're referring to, which tend to be of inferior quality.

__________________“Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide.”
― John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel

I mean, a better example of Superman being unreasonably angry would be in the Captain Marvel episode where he acts super paranoid about Luthor and is kind of a dick to Captain Marvel the entire time. I still liked it, because it was in the middle of the Cadmus arc where everyone was under stress and in this case it was especially personal for Superman, but it's a much better example than Superman raging at a literal living embodiment of evil who murdered a friend of his and is so casual about it he doesn't even remember the dude's name.

I wasn't aware that there was a sarcastic version of the strawman. I'm kind of amused that you think that's a debate tactic, as that implies that I put actual thought into that response.

Quote:

That's not why people don't like the way the movie did it. You know that's not why.

Eh. There are definitely people who do believe that since it could have been done, that the film failed in not presenting this element in MAN OF STEEL.

You yourself call it a flaw later on.

Quote:

Stories need to actually dramatize their content to have a meaningful emotional connection with the audience. Yes, it's obvious that people are dying by the thousands, but if the movie doesn't actually dramatize that then at best it feels false and hollow and and worst it feels cynical, disrespectful, and cold.

Dramatize how, exactly?

I don't think it IS obvious that people are dying by the thousands. I think what's obvious is there's a lot of destruction going on, and that people are likely in danger. I'm not sure there's any way to really determine how many people are dying. Nor do I think that's the point. I think the point is that people are in peril, and likely some lives were lost, and the destruction from the battle is massive. All things that can be easily inferred based on what we can see.

Nor do I see why it has to feel false, hollow, cynical or disrespectful just because we're not told how many people died, or had it repeated to us that people did, in fact die, and that there was destruction. Does the destruction and what happened suddenly not exist?

Quote:

You say that you assume that Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But the movie doesn't show us this.

You can see why that feels really weird and makes people uncomfortable, right?

Nope. Life goes on. Life goes on without everyone dwelling on the bad things that happened sometimes. That's pretty clearly the intent of the scenes at the Daily Planet.

Quote:

You can see why that feels like the movie is completely disregarding the very serious and very obvious implications of what happened, right?

No. I don't feel that way at all. I can see why the movie moves on. It is not a movie about the impact Superman and Zod's battle had on Metropolis anymore than it is a movie about the impact Superman and Zod's battle had on Smallville.

It is a a movie about Superman himself. Once the final conflict between he and the antagonist is over, the focus moves back to Superman himself, and his place in the world.

Quote:

It all boils down to the old adage of "show, don't tell." The saying's as old as dirt that in a story, you have to show your audience what's happening and what it means, not just tell them about it. Having all of that destruction without dramatizing the seriousness and implications of it is telling, not through words per-se but through a very basic visual shorthand.

Hmm. I'm fairly certain that the visual shorthand you refer to is called "showing", actually.

Quote:

We see all of this destruction and we're supposed to feel that there are serious stakes and these are serious things, but they don't show us the emotional and psychological toll it takes on our characters

Well, in the case of Superman, that's simply not true. He's on his knees crying at the end of the battle.

Quote:

Nor does it show us the effect these events are having on the lives of the people of Metropolis.

And again, that isn't the focus of this movie, and is likely the focus of the next film.

Quote:

They give us images of buildings falling down and basically tell us to feel sad about it.

I don't remember being told to feel sad about it. I don't remember being told to feel anything. I made my own inferences about what was likely happening based on the events of the movie. I don't remember being asked to focus on anything but what Superman is going through in this movie.

Quote:

And, sure, on an intellectual level we know it's sad, but we don't feel it in our gut the way we're supposed to, the way a movie is supposed to make us feel.

You assume it's supposed to make you feel sad, though. The sequence is inherently about the power of these two clashing Gods. Not about the deaths that are being caused. Or I would imagine that they would have, you know, referenced the deaths being caused somehow, instead of focusing on the two Gods and the damage they were causing.

Quote:

I really don't think it's a failure on the part of the audience if the filmmakers don't ground the events of their climax emotionally, and instead just throw images at us and expect us to feel things. That doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective storytelling.

The filmmakers did ground the events of their climax emotionally. They just chose to focus on their main character's emotions, instead of those of the people of Metropolis.

I don't see where the filmmakers expected you to feel things at all. I don't see why we should have to feel certain things at every step along the way. Seems to me that putting true emotional stakes throughout an action sequence would muddy the focus a bit. When the filmmakers want us to feel something, at the end of the battle, we do.

To me, it's a clear case of focus. MAN OF STEEL is not a movie about Metropolis. It is a movie about Superman, first and foremost, and the impact this man's appearance has on a couple of key players in the mythology.

Could they have shown the aftermath of the damage? Yes, but they arguably did anyway. What they didn't do was tell us how many people died, or show the people of Metropolis dealing with it, and with the implications of Superman's appearance. And again, that is likely going to be seen in the sequel, which is a pretty normal structuring of dealing with such concepts.

Quote:

I don't think that's an excuse. If you leave something absolutely vital out of your movie and then say "we'll get to it in the sequel," you still have a movie with a huge missing piece.

Why is it vital in this film? Sure, it would have been nice to see, but why is it a "huge, missing piece" given the focus of the film? What makes it vital?

Quote:

Film series are fine, but each installment has to be self contained to an extent.

Then why can't an aspect like dealing with the aftermath of a disaster and a public sentiment toward Superman be self contained in the second film?

Quote:

The plot doesn't necessarily have to be wrapped up in each film but they still have to address things, especially things of this magnitude.

Where is that written, exactly?

Quote:

Making it the focus of the next film doesn't change the fact that we cut from a destroyed metropolis to Superman smiling and joking with his mom and then cut to Metropolis where everything looks fine and like it's business as usual.

Superman isn't just smiling and joking with his mom. He's having a very somber moment about his deceased father and his place in the world.

Quote:

I apologize for continually making this comparison, but The Avengers didn't save addressing the destruction in their climax for the sequel and it only made the film stronger.

No, but the AVENGERS did rush through addressing the destruction in a reaction montage, which, by your own standards, seems to violate the whole "show, don't tell" thing, since showing something in a visual shorthand is just another form of "telling" according to you.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night